Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop? By Kevin MacDonald http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/070131_mideast.htm Almost 3 ½ years ago I published
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 5, 2007
      Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?
      By Kevin MacDonald
      http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/070131_mideast.htm


      Almost 3 ½ years ago I published Thinking about Neoconservatism,
      analyzing the neoconservative movement in the context of my studies
      of the behavior pattern of Jewish groups in the societies where they
      live. I concluded neoconservatism was the latest of a long
      procession of political and intellectual movements dominated and
      essentially controlled by members of the Jewish community, in effect
      dedicated to a particular concept of how to promote the interests of
      that community. I specifically cited foreign policy and immigration
      as hallmark interests.

      At the time, and for a couple of years later, this was an
      unmentionable theory. I am told certain prominent web sites stopped
      linking to VDARE.com after my essay was published. The malign
      presence of the SPLC (the "Southern Poverty Law Center", a notorious
      ethnically-oriented Political Correctness enforcer) was soon felt on
      the scene, not coincidentally, and it named VDARE.COM a "hate
      group", a sobriquet more normally associated with groups advocating
      violence and other forms of illegality.

      But now public debate has changed considerably. Serious antiwar
      commentary routinely connects the Iraq/Iran policy problem with the
      influence of Israel and her friends in America. (See here and here
      and here.)

      So I ask now: will the other boot drop? Will this candor next extend
      to the immigration controversy?

      The vast majority of Americans live under the comfortable illusion
      that theirs is a free country. They suppose that issues are openly
      and honestly debated in the newspapers and on talk shows. In this
      imaginary world, all issues affecting public policy are on the table
      and are constantly scrutinized by the best and the brightest.

      But that is simply not the case. In fact, I would go so far as to
      argue the opposite—that virtually all of the really critical issues
      affecting the United States and its role in the world are actually
      excluded from discussion in the elite media or in the political
      arena.

      The classic case: US policy in the Middle East. Despite the obvious
      fact that US support for Israel has crucial implications for war and
      peace, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to what is
      really going on in this region.

      Most Americans would be appalled to learn the truth about what
      former President Jimmy Carter terms "the abominable oppression and
      persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid
      system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's
      citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank." Carter calls
      attention to the "enormous imprisonment wall … now under
      construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass
      more and more land for Israeli settlers." (Los Angeles Times,
      December 8 2006).

      Carter's recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid0, and his
      courageous defense of it, seem finally to be triggering a newly open
      discussion of Israeli actions and Jewish influence in the U.S.
      Coming on the heels of the work of the University of Chicago's John
      Mearsheimer and Harvard University's Stephen Walt on the Israel
      Lobby, it highlights many of the same issues. Indeed, Carter has
      explicitly endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt's conclusion that American
      policy in the Middle East does not reflect genuine American
      interests, but instead those of the Israel Lobby. (Carter Shares
      Insight On Peace In Mideast, by Marty Rosen, Coastal Post, January 3
      2007)

      This is why it is possible to hope that the role of Jewish influence
      in promoting the epochal change inaugurated by the 1965 Immigration
      Act might also now be discussed openly and honestly

      Carter is quite clear that open discussion of Israel's policies in
      the U.S. has been suppressed:

      "This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government
      is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-
      Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant
      contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members
      of Congress … to suggest that Israel comply with international law
      or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians….
      What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages
      of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise
      similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments
      expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land."

      In fact, it is not at all difficult to comprehend how this regime
      of "self-restraint" is maintained. President Carter himself, and
      Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt, point to pressure by the Israel Lobby
      on the media, consequent media self-censorship, and the intimidation
      of dissidents.

      Carter's book has created the astounding spectacle of a former
      president of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize winner being
      called an anti-Semite, being condemned by mainstream Jewish
      organizations such as the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and
      having his offers to give talks at major universities with high
      Jewish enrollment rejected. The saga of the book's treatment on
      Amazon has been a farce.

      The ADL's Abe Foxman is one of many who have used the old canard of
      anti-Semitism to condemn both President Carter and Mearsheimer and
      Walt. (My favorite title in this genre is by David Horowitz: "Jimmy
      Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar".)

      I focus on Foxman's comments because he heads a mainstream Jewish
      activist organization and thus reflects the opinions of at least a
      major component of the organized Jewish community. (It has long been
      noticed that there is a gap between the attitudes of the majority of
      American Jews and the attitudes of the established Jewish leaders.
      This is especially apparent on issues such as the neoconservative
      agenda of regime change in the Middle East and support of
      expansionist right-wing governments in Israel.)

      The point here is that the Jewish Establishment will strongly resist
      any discussion of Jewish influence or dual loyalty in any area of
      public policy, no matter how judicious and factually-based it may
      be. These Jewish leaders have a strong sense of history. They know
      that Jews have repeatedly become elites in European societies. But
      they also realize that Jewish power and influence and dual loyalty
      have been potent themes of anti-Semitism throughout the ages. And
      they know that increases in Jewish power and influence have often
      been followed by the rise of rise of anti-jewish movements0
      spearheaded by people whose interests have been damaged by that
      Jewish power and influence.

      The strategy used by the Jewish Establishment is not to condemn the
      neocons for acting on their strong emotional and ethnic ties to
      Israel and manipulating the Bush administration into the disaster of
      Iraq and a looming war with Iran. Nor is it to urge that the Israel
      Lobby be scaled back in an effort to bring it more in line with a
      reasonable view of American interests. Rather, they go into the full
      blown smear and intimidation mode.

      Hence the fury among Jewish activists when General Wesley Clark
      blurted our that "New York money people" are gung-ho for bankrolling
      politicians who will support US involvement in a war against Iran;
      and that talk of a war with Iran is common in Israel. As Matthew
      Iglesias, himself Jewish, notes: "Everything Clark said … is true.
      What's more, everybody knows it's true." (American Prospect, January
      23, 2007). But, as we should know by now, truth is irrelevant here.

      Partly this is because, thus far, these tactics have been
      tremendously effective. The American Jewish Establishment will not
      change these tactics until they stop working. After all, it is a
      long road from widespread discussion on the internet and occasional
      mentions in the above-ground media to having a real influence on the
      President and in the halls of Congress. There, change will be much
      slower.

      This is especially true given the very large role of Jewish money in
      funding the newly-resurgent Democrats. On the Republican side, as
      Scott McConnell has argued, the neocons may be down, but they are
      far from out. And they are still pushing for war against Iran.

      I think too that the American Jewish leadership no longer has the
      flexibility to use any other strategy. The radical expansionists,
      often motivated by religious and ethnic fanaticism, have long been
      in control in Israel—since 1967 really. They are the vanguard of the
      Jewish community, and as usual, they they pull the rest of the
      Jewish community with them0. The moderates (aka "self-hating Jews")
      have been shoved aside and do not really count any more. Similarly,
      the organized Jewish community in America is dominated by the
      expansionists. Jews who do not sign on to Israel's expansionist
      agenda are relegated to the fringes.

      Indeed, one of the arguments of Mearsheimer and Walt is that Israel
      would be far better off if it could not persuade Washington to
      support its expansionist agenda. And reasonable Jews like Jerome
      Slater are wondering what it takes to "save Israel from itself":

      "The real issue is the willed ignorance—the psychological need not
      to know—of our community. The price—to the Palestinians, to the
      Israelis, and to American national security—is already unbearable,
      and it may well soon become apocalyptic."

      These comments bring to mind historian Albert Lindemann's statement
      in his book Esau's Tears0 (P535)

      "Jews actually do not want to understand their past—or at least
      those aspects of their past that have to do with the hatred directed
      at them, since understanding may threaten other elements of their
      complex and often contradictory identities."

      Whether it's about the past or the present, the pattern among Jews
      is self-deception0 and willful ignorance.

      As in the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret that
      Jewish organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy
      shift implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of
      Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham in his book
      Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and
      Immigration Policy in America0

      "Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving
      force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were
      Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic
      quotas… Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had
      been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration
      reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration
      reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as
      Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less
      visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on
      presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy
      advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman
      administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and
      presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba
      Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-
      Johnson administration." (pp. 56–57)

      In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal
      immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger
      about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the
      transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that
      illegal immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep
      off the public radar (What part of illegal don't you understand??).

      But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the
      Mainstream Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal
      immigrants that come to the U.S. every year—no discussion of their
      effect on the economy, social services, crime and competition at
      elite universities; no discussion of their effect on the long term
      ethnic composition of the U.S. and the displacement of native
      populations in various sectors of the economy; and no discussion of
      whether most Americans really want all of this. (They don't.) The
      fact that large scale legal immigration causes exactly the same
      difficulties as large scale illegal inflow is a non-subject.

      Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are
      quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who
      thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration
      are "racist" and "nativist".

      It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on
      the media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and
      intimidation via labeling, anathematizing, and ultimately loss of
      livelihood.

      Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category
      of "not fit for public discussion". Perhaps the main one is the
      role of genetic influences on intelligence and behavior.

      But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the
      U.S.) have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to
      particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been
      construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and
      political influence of their community.

      In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of
      immigration policy, there ample documentation [PDF] of a consistent
      interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in
      ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live.
      The measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there
      is indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old
      canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media,
      Congress, and the U.S. government".

      I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both
      immigration0 and the Middle East elsewhere. This has been extremely
      unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community
      would strenuously resist these conclusions.

      Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has
      obviously become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with
      intellectual integrity.

      As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be
      if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe,
      it is even more critical: America's post-1965 immigration disaster.


      Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology at California State
      University-Long Beach.

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.